Thanks for all the replies guys, very much appreciated. My apologies for the delay in responding. I have a couple more questions.
The wheel ET for my panda cross is 35mm and I understand that this is the distance between the centre line of the wheel and the inner surface of the wheel mounting plate. So my first question is whether I can use a lower E T say 30mm or 28mm, so long as the PCD is correct??

My second question is whether I can successfully use a 4x100 PCD rather than the 4x98 specified for my car??

Many thanks

I presume a lower ET would give more clearance to the brakes but a higher ET could result in the wheels binding on the brakes???? Is this correct?

4 x 100 need wobbly bolts. Not my first choice.
ET is always in relation to the width of the rim. https://www.1010tires.com/Tools/Wheel-Offset-Calculator
Higher ET will not automatically hit a calliper, but might hit a strut or subframe.

gr J

It's about the steering geometry. The ideal puts the turning point (where the steering swings the wheel) right through the tyre centreline so the tyre forces are balanced either side. If there is too much tyre on one side, the steering gets heavy to turn as the tyre is scrubbed. More importantly, bumps will push the steering and at certain speeds, the wheels can develop a oscillating wobble like an old Tesco trolley.

Also think about the tyre rolling diameter. If it's too big you effectively raise the gear ratios so the engine can't cope on mud or hills because bottom gear is no longer low enough to get the job done.
McPherson struts (as the Panda has) do not allow a great deal of space between the strut and the wheel hub. 35ET is not a huge offset but any more risks the tyre rubbing the strut. The 100HP (with 195 tyres) has a bigger turning circle than the "standard" models. Its not much on paper but enough to notice in tight car parks.

The turning circle of the 100HP is bigger because of the 6 speed gearbox.
My winters are ET 42,5 14" X 5,5. they fit (and drive) perfect but leave no room for chains.

gr J

A3jeroen said:

The turning circle of the 100HP is bigger because of the 6 speed gearbox.
My winters are ET 42,5 14" X 5,5. they fit (and drive) perfect but leave no room for chains.

Click to expand...

I assumed it was the wider wheel hitting wheel arch.

Narrow wheels are much more tolerant on offset but 35 is really not very much when you look at the size of the typical wheel.

dry powder isn't what we have typically in the UK. Same with the other video that takes place on an indoor ski slope

slush is more like standing water than dry powder.

Pugglt Auld Jock said:

Thanks Kronkron I enjoyed that a lot. It would be interesting to see a wider range of sizes tested over a wider range of situations including snow and ice and summer Vs winter compounds. Or am I just a bit too obsessed?

Click to expand...

I probably said it earlier but to repeat - In the snow of 2010 in South Wales my Punto HGT got all the way up a hill steep enough to stop any "normal" car. The only thing it had was decent tyres (though half worn) and traction control. I doubt a Panda 4x4 would have done any better.

Anything with more aggressive tread was pointless because once up there the car was stuck for the duration. The following day, a neighbour with a Japanese 4x4 pick on F-off knobby tyres nearly lost it on the same hill. He was in crawler gear with diffs locked, yet with all four wheels turning slowly forwards, the car slid ever faster backwards. He managed to wedge it against a kerb but came close to rolling it.

Clearly his high ground clearance would have coped with loose snow that would stop a Panda 4x4 but once it's become flattened you won't get anywhere without snow chains.